The time between the sudden death of John Smith in 1994 and the re-writing of Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution by Blair marked the slow transition from what is now called ‘Old Labour’. This rather ambiguous but controversial passage outlined the main values of the party, meant to symbolise the small but important components of the industry of Britain. But did the re-writing of this, in particular, spell the death of the left-wing, socialist party?

When the Labour Party was established, its members created the ‘Rule Book’, which still applies today, in which lies the constitution. Part 4 of Clause IV read that it would ‘secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.’ One of the most debated meanings in this section is ‘common ownership’. It was meant by many to mean ‘co-operatives’, whether social or municipal. However, it can also be interpreted akin to the ‘public ownership’ or nationalisation of certain parts of industry. This is evident in 1945, when Clement Atlee, the first post-war prime minister, enacted the nationalisation of, among others, the railways, coal and the Bank of England. The 1945 manifesto states clearly that ‘The Labour Party is a Socialist Party… [and] its materials organised [by] the British people.’ This policy of the party stayed until the beginning of New Labour, as nationalisation of these industries carried on for more than 40 years.

However, the re-writing of the clause does not mention anything about common ownership on terms of economy. Part 2 of the 2008 version states that Labour works for a ‘dynamic economy, serving the public interest…and the opportunity to work and prosper with a thriving private sector’. Yet, this can conflict with the opening statement that the party is a ‘democratic socialist party’. This phrase re-affirms itself with the traditional meaning of socialism, only to distance itself from the authoritarian dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc.

Yet, one of the principles of democratic socialism is that no person should exploit any other person. Surely this is really the case in the private sector, where there are those who are not able to support themselves, yet they work as hard as possible. Surely, the Labour Party has betrayed its own, right?

On the other hand, Britain has become more gentrified under Labour. The former heartlands of industrial Britain, Northern England, Scotland and South Wales, have been transformed through new housing, the attempt to halt the ‘London-centricity’ of the country by encouraging companies to provide job opportunities. We had all become richer, or failing that, felt richer, with easy borrowing from the banks, the boom in the economy. This move to the right with the fight on crime, the war on drugs that was implemented, gave the majority of Britain a better life. The sacrifice, however, was leaving the traditional supporters of Labour behind. Arthur Scargill, the leader of the breakaway Socialist Labour Party, said in a party political broadcast in 1997, ‘Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are all the same’. Maybe it was an attempt to woo voters but I think he had a point, especially now. The Lib-Con coalition has created an almost centre party. Labour was right-wing in some respects, with crime. Labour failed to ring-fence spending on NHS, but the Conservatives did. Have the tables turned?

This monotony, to some, of the same policies said by different leaders has led to the man of a previous generation to go to the extreme. The rise of the BNP should not be under-estimated. After all, the recession creates an opportunity to blame certain groups for this crisis, as the Nazis did in the 1920’s by being anti-Semitic and promising a better country without them.

So where is the left-wing party? Do we need one? My answer is yes. It is part of a proper democracy, in which all people from all sides are allowed to give their view. People should not have to compromise on ideals or opinions. This isn’t to say that everyone should have their own political party but rather that people shouldn’t have to vote the same way every time for the sake of doing so.

By Alexander Olive

Sources:

Wikipedia,

What is democrat socialism?

Labour Party 1964 and 1992 manifestos